Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22685

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
Ashraf Unnisa – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority And Special Officer – Respondent
WP No. 30858 of 2025|WP No. 25084 of 2025|WP No. 25108 of 2025|WP No. 25290 of 2025|WP No. 25377 of 2025|WP No. 25421 of 2025|WP No. 25429 of 2025|WP No. 25431 of 2025|WP No. 25455 of 2025|WP No. 25456 of 2025|WP No. 25461 of 2025|WP No. 25464 of 2025|WP No. 25516 of 2025|WP No. 29618 of 2025|WP No. 29664 of 2025|WP No. 29714 of 2025|WP No. 29720 of 2025|WP No. 29758 of 2025|WP No. 29759 of 2025|WP No. 29765 of 2025|WP No. 29775 of 2025|WP No. 29817 of 2025|WP No. 29867 of 2025|WP No. 29882 of 2025|WP No. 30647 of 2025|WP No. 30714 of 2025|WP No. 30739 of 2025|WP No. 30797 of 2025|WP No. 30809 of 2025|WP No. 30853 of 2025|WP No. 30857 of 2025|WP No. 30867 of 2025|WP No. 30874 of 2025|WP No. 30875 of 2025|WP No. 30878 of 2025|WP No. 30880 of 2025|WP No. 30908 of 2025|WP No. 30928 of 2025|WP No. 30933 of 2025|WP No. 31022 of 2025|WP No. 31024 of 2025|WP No. 31045 of 2025|WP No. 31117 of 2025|WP No. 31193 of 2025|WP No. 31205 of 2025|WP No. 31223 of 2025|WP No. 31224 of 2025|WP No. 32707 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satishkumar K.
For the Respondents: Veeresh R. Budihal

A court will not exercise writ jurisdiction to pre-emptively quash a procedural notice issued by a statutory authority for the production of documents, as such notices are preliminary in nature and do not constitute coercive action. Disputed factual claims regarding financial transactions must be addressed during the administrative inquiry process.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 - Sections 3(1)(a), 6(2)(c) and 6(2)(j) - Summons and Notice - Issuance of notice for production of documents regarding alleged excess withdrawals by depositors does not amount to coercive action - Writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not an appropriate forum to examine the merits of disputed claims regarding quantum of deposits versus withdrawals at the notice stage. (Paras 1 and 2)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, claiming to be depositors, were issued notices and summons under the act to produce documents. The authorities alleged that these depositors had withdrawn amounts in excess of their actual deposits, leading to the freezing of their bank accounts. The petitioners sought to quash these notices, arguing they were arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights, and requested that their bank accounts be de-frozen.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that mere issuance of summons for the production of documents does not contemplate coercive steps. The competent authority is duty-bound to inspect and verify the veracity of the claims. If the inquiry determines that withdrawals were proportional to the deposits, the accounts must be de-frozen; if excess, the law provides a specific procedure for recovery. The Court refused to interfere via writ jurisdiction to determine factual disputes regarding financial records.

Issues: The main issues were whether notices issued for document production constitute coercive action and whether the high court should adjudicate upon the quantum of deposits and withdrawals under writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The issuance of a notice to produce documents in a pending inquiry does not trigger a cause of action for a writ petition as it is merely a procedural step. The statutory authorities must be allowed to complete the inquiry to determine the legality of withdrawals, with the court reserving liberty for depositors to provide explanations and documents.

Result: Writ petitions disposed of with liberty to furnish evidence; authorities directed to conduct a speedy inquiry and act proportionately.

Table of Content
1. identity of petitioners and procedural context of the petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

IN WP NO.30858/2025:

BETWEEN:

SMT. ASHRAF UNNISA,

W/O MOHAMMED GHOUSE,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

HOUSE WIFE 04, SAMIKSHA ENCLAVE,

38TH CROSS 2ND MAIN, HBR LAYOUT,

5TH BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 043.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SATISHKUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND

SPECIAL OFFICER, IMA AND OTHER

KPIDFE ACT CASES, 3RD FLOOR,

PODIUM BLOCK, V V TOWER,

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE NOTICE BEARING NO. SPLOCA/IMA/ENQ- 1/08/2025-26 DATED 12.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT - SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTERESTT OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 2004, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PETITIONER'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

IN WP NO.25084/2025:

BETWEEN:

SMT. ZAREENA BEGUM,

W/O NAYAZ AHMED,

AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

ARABIC TUITION TEACHER,

#2B, NO.19TH STREET,

CHANDI CHOWK ROAD CROSS,

SHIVAJINAGAR,

BENGALURU 560 051.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SATISHKUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND

SPECIAL OFFICER, IMA AND OTHER

KPIDFE ACT CASES, 3RD FLOOR,

PODIUM BLOCK, V V TOWER,

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE NOTICE BEARING NO. SPLOCA/IMA/ENQ-1/08/2025-26 DATED 12.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT - SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTERESTT OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 2004, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PETITIONER S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

IN WP NO.25108/2025:

BETWEEN:

SRI AEJAZ PASHA,

S/O MIRZA KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

SELF EMPLOYED,

NO.17, 4TH CROSS AR NAGAR,

NEAR UMAR FAROOQ MASJID,

M.S. PALYA, VIDYARANAPURA,

BENGALURU 560 097.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SATISHKUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND

SPECIAL OFFICER, IMA AND OTHER

KPIDFE ACT CASES, 3RD FLOOR,

PODIUM BLOCK, V V TOWER,

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

IN WP NO.25290/2025:

BETWEEN:

SRI SYED SHAKIR,

S/O MIRZA KHAN,

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

NO.220. 8TH CROSS,

NEAR GYANA MANDIR SCHOOL,

KANAKANAGAR, YELACHENAHALLI,

BENGALURU 560 078.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SATISHKUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND

SPECIAL OFFICER, IMA AND OTHER

KPIDFE ACT CASES, 3RD FLOOR,

PODIUM BLOCK, V V TOWER,

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO. SPLOCA/IMA/ENQ-1/08/2025-26 DATED 12.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-SPECIAL OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTERESTT OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 2004, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PETITIONERS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLES 14, 19 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,

IN WP NO.25377/2025:

BETWEEN:

SMT. RAZIYA BEGUM,

W/O NAZIR BAIG,

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

HOUSE WIFE,

NO.156. 17TH CROSS,

OPP. TO DOMINIC SCHOOL,

GOVINDPURA ARABIC COLLEGE POST,

BENGALURU 560 045.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SATISHKUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND

SPECIAL OFFICER, IMA AND OTHER

KPIDFE ACT CASES, 3RD FLOOR,

PODIUM BLOCK, V V TOWER,

DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

BENGALURU 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document